What is your favorite prestige class?

[NecroDancer]

The prestige class may not be optimized or easy to get to but if it holds a place in your heart please share it, also if you could give a brief explanation why that would be great.

My favorite prestige class is the Dirgesinger, it was my first prestige class and I love all the songs (except grief I haven't found a good chance to use song of grief, I keep forgetting about it). Also song of awakening was so worth it when I finally got to use it (I animated a wyvern and had it fly half the party to safety).

[JoshuaZ]

The prestige class may not be optimized or easy to get to but if it holds a place in your heart please share it, also if you could give a brief explanation why that would be great.

My favorite prestige class is the Dirgesinger, it was my first prestige class and I love all the songs (except grief I haven't found a good chance to use song of grief, I keep forgetting about it). Also song of awakening was so worth it when I finally got to use it (I animated a wyvern and had it fly half the party to safety).

The Dirgesinger is a really fun fluffwise; if the crunch supported it better I'd be happier.

My favorite might be the Jade Phoenix Mage for awesome fluff, good crunch and using the very fun Tome of Battle system. (My favorite 3.5 magic system is the binder but unfortunately all the official PrCs meh in one way or another.)

[Venger]

The prestige class may not be optimized or easy to get to but if it holds a place in your heart please share it, also if you could give a brief explanation why that would be great.

My favorite prestige class is the Dirgesinger, it was my first prestige class and I love all the songs (except grief I haven't found a good chance to use song of grief, I keep forgetting about it). Also song of awakening was so worth it when I finally got to use it (I animated a wyvern and had it fly half the party to safety).

My favorite prc is chameleon. it's from races of destiny. it gives you access to any divine list freely and any arcane list (depending on money)

I love bookdiving, so chameleon's fun. it also lets you mimic a number of other iconic class features.

[Nifft]

Anima Mage, because it allows me to enjoy the fun bits of being a Binder without losing too much of my shiny T1 spellcasting progression.

[Stealth Marmot]

Unseen Seer. The ultimate investigator.

[Eldariel]

One cool class of the top of my head is Master of the Nine. An awesome PRC overall with lots of fun abilities and grounds for getting the 9x9 builds as a martial adept. Counter Stance + Dual Stance + Stance of Alacrity in particular is great action- and combat-wise. Hard to get into and suffers of some design flaws, but it's quite decent in a T3ish high level game.

[Malimar]

Fleshwarper, from Lords of Madness. Nearly impossible to get into before level 10, and most grafts are too expensive to be worth the effort even if you're crafting them, but you can't beat the fluff of slowly transforming yourself into an abomination of science.

Similarly, Renegade Mastermaker, from Magic of Eberron. At least it's easy to get into, but the capstone is "you're a warforged now", which you could have just started out as and skipped the prestige class. But again, you can't beat the fluff of slowly transforming yourself into a steampunk magitek cyborg (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482653-Being-a-Steampunk-Magitek-Cyborg-A-Renegade-Mastermaker-Handbook).

[Remuko]

I havent played it yet but I really love the idea of Walker in the Wastes. Its such a cool concept.

[danielxcutter]

There are so many awesome PrCs, but one of my favorites has to be Spellwarp Sniper. Crunch-wise it's a good choice for an Arcane Trickster or Unseen Seer build, but the fluff is pretty cool as well. Shooting rays in every different flavor, from energy damage to level-draining, never fails to be awesome.

[Hogsy]

The PF's Eldritch Knight is one of my favourite concepts. An awesome concept executed in the poorest of ways. It has such a cool name too. Shame.

Well, I'm not too bummed by it considering the Magus is a base class and is awesome!

[Clopin Silk]

The shadowdancer used to be my favourite for the sheer coolness of shadowstep. But right now, I'm a sucker for the Swiftblade. I mean, first off, it just makes me imagine something that feels like it came out of an anime; a swordsman moving faster than the eyes can follow is a pretty cool mental image. Next is the fact that other magic users look down on them; I can't help but love an underdog. And finally, there's a certain bloody-minded stubbornness to them, almost contrarian; they're a magic user, typically a wizard or sorcerer, devoting all of their magic to close combat, the thing they're never meant to do.

[KillingAScarab]

It's a tough choice, but I think I have to go with Doomguide. I really like Kelemvor, so a prestige class based around him is pretty great, to me. Even in 3.0 it was better than Cleric 20.

[ryu]

Anima Mage, because it allows me to enjoy the fun bits of being a Binder without losing too much of my shiny T1 spellcasting progression.

You do realize you can get in with feats and lose none right?

[RoboEmperor]

Shadowcraft Mage.

1. I love expendable minions
2. I love creating expendable minions
3. I hate summoning

Minion creation in this game horrendous. They are not expendable, ridiculously expensive, and impossible to upgrade.

My love for minions beats my hatred of summons, so I've been gritting my teeth and just using the summons, but then I discovered shadowcraft mage! They don't summon. They create shadow creatures out of shadow. Sure the shadow creatures are vastly inferior to normal summons since everything they do requires will and SR checks, but who cares. Important thing here is in a setting where planar travel is impossible, or a creature is now completely extinct, I can still use my shadow creatures because I am creating them, not bringing a random one in from who knows where.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Fleshwarper, from Lords of Madness. Nearly impossible to get into before level 10, and most grafts are too expensive to be worth the effort even if you're crafting them, but you can't beat the fluff of slowly transforming yourself into an abomination of science.

Similarly, Renegade Mastermaker, from Magic of Eberron. At least it's easy to get into, but the capstone is "you're a warforged now", which you could have just started out as and skipped the prestige class. But again, you can't beat the fluff of slowly transforming yourself into a steampunk magitek cyborg (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482653-Being-a-Steampunk-Magitek-Cyborg-A-Renegade-Mastermaker-Handbook).
These are really cool.

I'm a big fan of the Mind Mage and Swiftblade classes. And anything that manipulates magic.

[Inevitability]

Cancer Mage, for having some of the best (and most abusable) class features for a non-casting class.

[danielxcutter]

Cancer Mage, for having some of the best (and most abusable) class features for a non-casting class.

I hear that they have one of the most damaging spells in the entire game: Fist. :smalltongue:

No, really, how does that work?:smallconfused:

[Inevitability]

I hear that they have one of the most damaging spells in the entire game: Fist. :smalltongue:

No, really, how does that work?:smallconfused:

The Festering Anger disease (from BoVD) increases your strength at the cost of decreasing your constitution every day: the original intent must've been for people to keel over after a week or so. However, a Cancer Mage can just ignore all drawbacks, gaining more and more strength at no cost every day.

Eventually (a Fast Time plane would be helpful there), the afflicted PC has a strength score best expressed in scientific notation, at which point anything with HP can be killed with a single punch.

It gets better: an illumian with the right combination of sigils can gain bonus spells based on strength. Say hello to infinite spells of every level!

[Venger]

I hear that they have one of the most damaging spells in the entire game: Fist. :smalltongue:

No, really, how does that work?:smallconfused:

Cancer mage's disease host ability allows them to ignore the negative effects of disease. If you infect yourself with festering anger, your strength goes up by 2 every day with no cap on it, so you have a nigh-infinite score in very little time.

[Nifft]

You do realize you can get in with feats and lose none right?

If you're playing without a sane DM, that's entirely reasonable.

I tend to play under different circumstances.

[Chulehdoido]

Max charisma and Zhentarim Skymage! Dread Linnorm pet and share spells with him ! Ride Dragons is always fun!

[Inevitability]

Max charisma and Zhentarim Skymage! Dread Linnorm pet and share spells with him ! Ride Dragons is always fun!

Aaaaaand he's back. Again.

[Chulehdoido]

Aaaaaand he's back. Again.
Again!! I am stealth!
http://tofustudio.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/5827559526_238aa3df20_z.jpg

[Troacctid]

The Festering Anger disease (from BoVD) increases your strength at the cost of decreasing your constitution every day: the original intent must've been for people to keel over after a week or so. However, a Cancer Mage can just ignore all drawbacks, gaining more and more strength at no cost every day.

Eventually (a Fast Time plane would be helpful there), the afflicted PC has a strength score best expressed in scientific notation, at which point anything with HP can be killed with a single punch.

It gets better: an illumian with the right combination of sigils can gain bonus spells based on strength. Say hello to infinite spells of every level!
Of course Cancer Mage does basically nothing to support this trick, so it feels kind of like you're using UMD on a Scroll of Wish, initiating an infinite loop with it, and then claiming the rogue class is broken.

[JoshuaZ]

If you're playing without a sane DM, that's entirely reasonable.

I tend to play under different circumstances.

All the feats are in the exact same section of the book as the PrC itself, so it seems that the designers intended that to be an option.

[GrayDeath]

If it wasnt terrible regarding prerequs and BAB Dup, I love the Kensais Flavour. And its (pre ToB unequalled) "WIll over Enemy" Abilities. And its "Soulblade" ^^.

Regarding Prc`s that atually work the way they say they do probably alker in the Wastes. Strong and cool, plus non LA Lichdom. ;)

[Inevitability]

Of course Cancer Mage does basically nothing to support this trick, so it feels kind of like you're using UMD on a Scroll of Wish, initiating an infinite loop with it, and then claiming the rogue class is broken.

Nowhere did I claim anything is broken.

Also, Cancer Mage is probably the best way to deal with the disease's drawbacks. Having Restoration prepared or binding Naberius works fine against the constitution damage, but fails to protect you from the fits of anger that come with the disease.

[Troacctid]

Nowhere did I claim anything is broken.

Also, Cancer Mage is probably the best way to deal with the disease's drawbacks. Having Restoration prepared or binding Naberius works fine against the constitution damage, but fails to protect you from the fits of anger that come with the disease.
It's a highly inefficient solution. It costs you multiple feats and a class level, where you could have done it just as well with a single feat, or a single cheap magic item, or a dip in a different class that doesn't require a tax of three feats, or even a single spell slot if you're the right kind of caster. Compare it against a warblade dip for save-replacement maneuvers, for example. Now you auto-pass your saving throw, so it's no problem, and you didn't need to take janky feats like Toughness, and, plus, on top of that, you can also nab Mountain Hammer or Iron Heart Surge or White Raven Tactics or whatever. Waaay more powerful.

Besides, since IIRC Cancer Mage doesn't do anything to make you actually contract Festering Anger, it seems like false advertising to talk about it as if it's a class ability. I actually like Cancer Mage a lot, and it's a super-cool class for rogue-types, but let's be honest, Festering Anger is not and should not be a selling point, and it bugs me a little that the optimization community seems to have pigeonholed the class into this TO trick that it really isn't even that good at.

[Doctor Awkward]

The Charlatan (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8763.0)

A 5 level prestige class found in the back of Dragon #335. It was the winner of the Origins Prestige Class design contest.

Very low entry requirements of Bluff, Knowlege arcane and religion, Perform (acting), and Spellcraft, and Skill Focus (Bluff).

It's primary feature is breaking the campaign with Bluff. Highlights include tricking people into thinking they are subject to spells (like Command, Scare, Crushing Despair or Bestow Curse) by rolling successful Bluff checks, fooling divination spells into picking up only on the lies you tell people about yourself, counterspelling real magic by rolling Bluff checks, and culminating with altering an entire cities attitude towards a specific person.

I played one in a campaign once as a changeling Rouge 5/Charlatan 5/Chameleon 10. The arrangement I worked out with the party was that they agreed to prop him up as this massively powerful figure to which they were the followers in exchange for him being the target for the fallout for when things went sour. Pretty much everything the rest of the party did, he took credit for. I was also able to play him as an almost total non-combatant with Fade Into Violence, Combat Panache, and Master Manipulator out of PHB2.

The highlight of the campaign for him was when I bluffed a fallen paladin working for the big baddie into thinking I was not only a high cleric of his order, but that I had cast an atonement spell and forgiven him for his crimes so he wouldn't participate in the final battle.

[Nifft]

All the feats are in the exact same section of the book as the PrC itself, so it seems that the designers intended that to be an option.

Given that Ari Marmell, the designer of the Shadowcaster -- from the same book -- has very explicitly complained that his design was not what got printed, that's your own speculation, and nothing more.

Furthermore, the idea that what a random designer intended is identical to what a sane GM will allow is also based on nothing.

You're saying things that are either outright ignorant of the source material, or simply a non-sequiter.

If you had tried to argue RAW, you might have a point.

It would not be relevant to this discussion, but at least an RAW argument could be supported.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Take a guess.:smalltongue:

[JoshuaZ]

Given that Ari Marmell, the designer of the Shadowcaster -- from the same book -- has very explicitly complained that his design was not what got printed, that's your own speculation, and nothing more.


Does not follow. That a specific section of a book has a problem doesn't mean that you can just assume that other sections of a book has problems. The default reasonable presumption is that something works as it was intended.




Furthermore, the idea that what a random designer intended is identical to what a sane GM will allow is also based on nothing.

It appears that we may have differing notions of what "sane" means. If a bunch of things are being used as someone reading that section would immediately see as a likely use then that strikes me as sane. I would not in fact allow it when I'm DMing most likely (among other issues, I've generally played in fairly low optimization groups) but that doesn't make it insane to allow it by many notions of what is sane or insane.

[Cosi]

I don't think Anima Mage is even that good if you get in without Binder levels. You can't advance the binding you don't have, so all you get is a couple of free uses of metamagic. If you throw those at Persistent Spell you end up spending four feats and ten levels for three free Persistent spells and an immediate action spell that is Stilled and Silent. That's okay, but by no means a top tier PrC. If you wanted to do metamagic abuse, you would become an Incantatrix which costs four levels, refunds your feats, and gives you a minimum of three Persistent spells.

[Nifft]

Does not follow. That a specific section of a book has a problem doesn't mean that you can just assume that other sections of a book has problems. The default reasonable presumption is that something works as it was intended. Incorrect.

That same book has two out of three classes which are either not working at all, or explicitly not working as intended.

The assumption of "designer intent" as a guarantee of unimpeachable design is what has no basis in fact, and which has counter-examples in the exact same work.

You're basing an argument on something which is provably false, and some of the most compelling proof is from the same book.

Your argument is wrong.


It appears that we may have differing notions of what "sane" means. That's quite possible. The internet is a big place, and sanity can and does vary.

[JoshuaZ]

Incorrect.

That same book has two out of three classes which are either not working at all, or explicitly not working as intended.

The assumption of "designer intent" as a guarantee of unimpeachable design is what has no basis in fact, and which has counter-examples in the exact same work.

You're basing an argument on something which is provably false, and some of the most compelling proof is from the same book.

That's unhelpful. You are now conflating designer intent and good design. These are different things. The problems with the Truenamer are sui generis and on a completely different scale. Moreover, no one is claiming that designer intent is a guarantee of "unimpeachable design"- that's a strawman that you've introduced. At no point did I, or anyone else in this thread, make this assertion, and it should be clear that that's pretty obviously not my position, given that I stated that if it came up when I was DM, I wouldn't allow it.

The point is that given that the design intent does appear to support this, and we have no evidence otherwise (e.g. any of the writers coming out and saying that it was misprinted or any other similar situation), saying that any DM who allows it is insane, when it isn't even that broken hinges on using very broad notions of what is insane.




That's quite possible. The internet is a big place, and sanity can and does vary.

You appear to be now using a recursive definition of insanity where anyone who doesn't agree with you on what is sane or not must themselves lack sanity.

[Inevitability]

You can't advance the binding you don't have

Spellcasting classes do indeed say this. Take Eldritch Knight's wording.


From 2nd level on, when a new eldritch knight level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class.

However, Anima Mage says:


At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class. Your anima mage levels and binder levels stack for the purpose of determining your bonus on binding checks, the effectiveness of your vestige-granted abilities, your ability to bind higher-level vestiges, and the number of vestiges you can bind. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a binder would have gained.

An ability going from zero to one effective levels is definitely improving, and Anima Mage levels stack with zero just fine. I don't see anything here that would prevent a non-binder soul binder from advancing their nonexistent soul binding.

[Cosi]

An ability going from zero to one effective levels is definitely improving, and Anima Mage levels stack with zero just fine. I don't see anything here that would prevent a non-binder soul binder from advancing their nonexistent soul binding.

I think that's a potentially fishy definition of "improve". Is building a new house an improvement to the house? This argument ends up being "what's NULL plus one", and the answer is "undefined". Yes, you can make the case that going from not having binding to having binding is an improvement. You can also make the case that it's something else. I lean towards it still being NULL, because some other interactions (e.g. orange ioun stones) get potentially problematic if you assume it's one.

[JoshuaZ]

I think that's a potentially fishy definition of "improve". Is building a new house an improvement to the house? This argument ends up being "what's NULL plus one", and the answer is "undefined". Yes, you can make the case that going from not having binding to having binding is an improvement. You can also make the case that it's something else. I lean towards it still being NULL, because some other interactions (e.g. orange ioun stones) get potentially problematic if you assume it's one.

This has some validity, but it does as if you had "gained a level in binder"- if the wording was for what you want, it would seem that something like "gained another level in binder" would have been the more natural English wording.

[Cosi]

This has some validity, but it does as if you had "gained a level in binder"- if the wording was for what you want, it would seem that something like "gained another level in binder" would have been the more natural English wording.

I think that's demanding a higher level of linguistic precision than it's reasonable to expect of the rules. The rules aren't written in an unambiguous and formal way. If they were, there'd be a general case this would default to and the debate wouldn't happen at all. I agree that there are arguments for your position, I just don't think they're definitive.

[Troacctid]

Some prestige classes require levels in the class they're advancing. Some don't. Anima Mage is one of the ones that doesn't (for binding, anyway). It's just one of those things where you have to read the text. Like with spells known. *Shrug*

[Nifft]

That's unhelpful. You are now conflating designer intent and good design. These are different things. Heh, no. That is you.

I said, "No sane DM would allow this."

You responded by saying, "But that is the designer's intent."

If your argument about the designer's intent was not supposed to imply that designer intent => good design => sane DM should allow, then I guess you're not making any sort of counter-argument -- you're just making a non-sequiter. Is that the case, or were you trying to offer a counter-argument?

If you were, you've certainly undermined your previous counter-argument, to the extent that I hope we're done here.


The problems with the Truenamer are sui generis and on a completely different scale. Moreover, no one is claiming that designer intent is a guarantee of "unimpeachable design"- that's a strawman that you've introduced. It's the basis of your entire counter-argument. So if it's a straw-man, that's fine -- but it's not mine.


At no point did I, or anyone else in this thread, make this assertion, and it should be clear that that's pretty obviously not my position, given that I stated that if it came up when I was DM, I wouldn't allow it. Wait, now you're saying that you would not allow that particular abuse, even though you've spent several posts trying to convince me that it should be allowed.

You seem to have some self-contradictory goals.

At least my interpretation is consistent: I would not allow it, and therefore I do not attempt to say it should be allowed.


The point is that given that the design intent does appear to support this, and we have no evidence otherwise (e.g. any of the writers coming out and saying that it was misprinted or any other similar situation), saying that any DM who allows it is insane, when it isn't even that broken hinges on using very broad notions of what is insane. IMHO the design doesn't seem to support it, since the feats don't give identical abilities to the class feature.

So even if it were balanced and could be argued to be intended, it would not be a solid foundation upon which to build an argument.

But it's not balanced, and it doesn't look intended.

Sorry, you're just wrong about this.

(Unproductively wrong, since apparently even you wouldn't allow it in your games. So that makes me wonder why you're trying to argue for it, if you personally would not allow it.)


You appear to be now using a recursive definition of insanity where anyone who doesn't agree with you on what is sane or not must themselves lack sanity. I haven't said anything of the sort.

If I were to say that your accusation sounds kinda paranoid, that is not because you disagree with me -- rather, it's because you seem to be implying that disagreement == insults to your sanity.

Protip: they're not. The fact that your argument is wrong is not an attack.

[danielxcutter]

Aaaaaaaaaaand here we go again. I swear, almost every thread I've posted in more than once and didn't make myself implodes in a clusterf**k of insulting - please don't do that here and prove me right.

[JoshuaZ]

I think that's demanding a higher level of linguistic precision than it's reasonable to expect of the rules. The rules aren't written in an unambiguous and formal way. If they were, there'd be a general case this would default to and the debate wouldn't happen at all. I agree that there are arguments for your position, I just don't think they're definitive.

In that case, I don't think there's a substantial disagreement; I agree that the wording is not definitive.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Spellcasting classes do indeed say this. Take Eldritch Knight's wording.

However, Anima Mage says:


At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class. Your anima mage levels and binder levels stack for the purpose of determining your bonus on binding checks, the effectiveness of your vestige-granted abilities, your ability to bind higher-level vestiges, and the number of vestiges you can bind. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a binder would have gained.

An ability going from zero to one effective levels is definitely improving, and Anima Mage levels stack with zero just fine. I don't see anything here that would prevent a non-binder soul binder from advancing their nonexistent soul binding.
Hmm, so how do you read this? There's more than one option, as usual. The first and second sentences do not say the same thing.

First, you can look at the first sentence, and say: "Anima Mage 10 simply grants 'binding as if you took ten levels in the class' ". The second sentence is just exposition.
Second, you can look at the second sentence, and say: "Anima Mage 10 stacks with your binder level for [...], and since your binder level is zero, you now have ten". The first sentence is just an introduction.
Thirdly, you can look at the second sentence, and say: "Anima Mage 10 stacks with your binder level for [...], and since your binder level is null, you now have null". The first sentence is just an introduction.
Fourthly, you can look at both sentences sequentially, and say: "Anima Mage 10 simply grants 'binding as if you took ten levels in the class', and then stacks with your binder level for [...], and since your binder level is ten, you now have twenty".

Personally, I favour #3. I think the first sentence is just an introduction, which is then specified in the second sentence, and you have not-a-number levels in classes in which you have no levels, so they cannot be stacked. I fully admit that I prefer this reading because I don't like the mechanic of advancing a class you don't rightly have. Arguments can be made for interpretation #1 and #2 (I assume #4 is universally discarded), especially since #1 and #2 do not require a contradiction between the sentences, whereas #3 is essentially an argumentum ad malus editing-us.


Now, I hope that this matter can be put to rest. I think it's one of those things you run past a DM you haven't played with before, and that's about what we can say about it.

[Nifft]

Personally, I favour #3. I think the first sentence is just an introduction, which is then specified in the second sentence, and you have not-a-number levels in classes in which you have no levels, so they cannot be stacked. I fully admit that I prefer this reading because I don't like the mechanic of advancing a class you don't rightly have.
The other argument I like for this case is the examination of patterns & examples: we have many examples of class feature advancement by PrC for spellcasting, and when you're able to gain spellcasting for a class which you didn't previously have that feature, it is called out explicitly.

This is also the argument that I use to say that Swordsage does not get (6+Int)x6 skill points at 1st level: that does not fit the pattern set by the rest of the game.



I think it's one of those things you run past a DM you haven't played with before, and that's about what we can say about it.
The other thing we can say is whether we'd allow any particular interpretation in our own games.

===

Anyway, in spite of all the confusion that it seems to cause, I really like the Anima Mage PrC.

Being a Binder adds a lot of useful at-will options at low levels, and at high levels it's got some really nice synergy with Wizard spellcasting.

[JoshuaZ]

Heh, no. That is you.

I said, "No sane DM would allow this."

You responded by saying, "But that is the designer's intent."

If your argument about the designer's intent was not supposed to imply that designer intent => good design => sane DM should allow, then I guess you're not making any sort of counter-argument -- you're just making a non-sequiter. Is that the case, or were you trying to offer a counter-argument?

Here's the point, which I thought was clear but apparently isn't. By reasonable notions of "sanity," it isn't insane to allow things that a designer thought reasonable, under the rough heuristic that designers often know what they doing.



Wait, now you're saying that you would not allow that particular abuse, even though you've spent several posts trying to convince me that it should be allowed.

You seem to have some self-contradictory goals.

Please point to where I said anywhere that it should be allowed. Specific quote please.



At least my interpretation is consistent: I would not allow it, and therefore I do not attempt to say it should be allowed.

Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point that someone can reasonably say "I would not allow x, but allowing x is not insane." There's nothing inconsistent in that position. And this is a distinction that has some importance. If I were playing in someone else's game and they allowed it, I wouldn't mind and would still play in that game. In contrast if for example a DM allowed Cancer Mage Illumian with more bonus spells than most high level mages cast in a week, questioning their sanity seems justified, and I'd be unlikely to want to play at a table with that DM.



IMHO the design doesn't seem to support it, since the feats don't give identical abilities to the class feature.

This is a distinct, novel argument in this thread, and has some validity. It really isn't a slamdunk either way on what was intended, but that doesn't make it insane or unreasonable to think that it was designer intent.



You appear to be now using a recursive definition of insanity where anyone who doesn't agree with you on what is sane or not must themselves lack sanity.

I haven't said anything of the sort.

If I were to say that your accusation sounds kinda paranoid, that is not because you disagree with me -- rather, it's because you seem to be implying that disagreement == insults to your sanity.

Protip: they're not. The fact that your argument is wrong is not an attack.

I agree that saying an argument is wrong isn't an attack. My comment is purely in the context of trying to understand what you mean by sane, and you do appear to be using a recursive notion. Let's refresh our memories briefly. I wrote:


It appears that we may have differing notions of what "sane" means.

You replied with:




It appears that we may have differing notions of what "sane" means.
That's quite possible. The internet is a big place, and sanity can and does vary.

So, you appear to be claiming here is that the primary way two people could disagree on what is sane is if one of them is in fact less sane in some important sense than the other. If that's not what you mean, please clarify. I don't think you've been particularly insulting here, but I do want to understand what you mean by sane here. It is hard to read that exchange and not see an implication of a recursive definition of insanity.

Edit for formatting.

[Nifft]

You replied with:



So, you appear to be claiming here is that the primary way two people could disagree on what is sane is if one of them is in fact less sane in some important sense than the other. If that's not what you mean, please clarify. I don't think you've been particularly insulting here, but I do want to understand what you mean by sane here. It is hard to read that exchange and not see an implication of a recursive definition of insanity.

...

Dude.

Seriously.

...

I implied that the things which people consider to be sane might vary.

Now please get over it and let the thread move on.

[ryu]

...

Dude.

Seriously.

...

I implied that the things which people consider to be sane might vary.

Now please get over it and let the thread move on.

You said sanity, not definitions of sanity. They're two very different things.

[prufock]

Aaaaaaaaaaand here we go again. I swear, almost every thread I've posted in more than once and didn't make myself implodes in a clusterf**k of insulting - please don't do that here and prove me right.
This case is special though, because they're both wrong. Let's just watch it burn.

[bean illus]

I always loved the Fochlucan Lyrist, even though there's barely a way to play it. Early entry makes it work.

[Nifft]

This case is special though, because they're both wrong. Let's just watch it burn.

Please do share the ~right~ rules interpretation with all of us.


EDIT:

I always loved the Fochlucan Lyrist, even though there's barely a way to play it. Early entry makes it work.
If you have access to Magic of Incarnum, then two feats (Shape Soulmeld: Impulse Boots + Open Least Chakra: Feet) can get you Evasion.

If you have access to Dragon magazine content, then Green Whisperer advances Bard & Druid casting, plus Bardic music.

With access to both, you can split your first 5 levels between Bard & Druid as you wish, and then get +15 casting for both (and +15 bardic music).

Usually I'd try to get some better Arcane casting than Bard, but having built one, it seems like the bard list really does fill out the gaps in the Druid list, and summoning an army of bears into my Dragonfire Inspiration music is pretty fun.

[Eldariel]

Usually I'd try to get some better Arcane casting than Bard, but having built one, it seems like the bard list really does fill out the gaps in the Druid list, and summoning an army of bears into my Dragonfire Inspiration music is pretty fun.

I'd recommend Sublime Chord if you wanna go the Bard-way.

[neriractor]

Take a guess.:smalltongue:

tactical soldier?

[El Dorado]

PF Eldritch Knight. The GM added a Paladin-like Code and the other PCs had to testify on my character's behalf. It was a solemn ceremony and, after slogging through the lower levels, truly was the highlight of his career.

On paper, the class lacks interesting class features (full BAB and 8/10 casting notwithstanding) and I went the universalist wizard, arcane armor training, arcane-bonded longsword route but it definitely felt like an accomplishment.

[Pugwampy]

Healing Hand .

Can only attack undead , vermin and constructs .

If the wounded enemy asks for healing , she is obligated to try and heal em . <your buddies will freak over this >


Benefits ?

Lvl 0 cure minor wounds gives 1 hp

My healing hand cure minor wounds spell healed for 17 hp .
Multiple maximized healing
Hit points using heal skill check
Aura that acts like a permanent sanctuary spell .

[studderingdave]

any love for the Master of Many Forms? We are allowed to alt ranger into wild shape early in progression. I have a fleshed out one as a backup in my current campaign.

Currently running Iajutsu Master in our current campaign (Ftr2/Factotum8/IM2) and I really enjoy it in a very focused build.

[137beth]

Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil.


When I first read the magic rules way back when I was introduced to D&D, I really wanted to make an Abjuration-focused character. When I read the spells chapter, I thought Prismatic Sphere was among the coolest spells in the PHB. For a ninth level spell, though, it turned out not to live up to my expectations. When I saw Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, I thought it might be the class I had wanted all along. And it was.

[AmericanCheese]

tactical soldier?

Oh PLEASE

It's obviously Risen Martyr, no other prestige class they'd like. It's obvious!

[prufock]

Please do share the ~right~ rules interpretation with all of us.
Your argument isn't about interpretation of the rules, it's about adjudicating designer intent and validity of rules as written. In that argument, you are both making logical errors, mainly errors of generalization. Any conclusions drawn from that are fallacious (based on incorrect belief, information or reasoning; in this context synonymous with wrong), even if the conclusion matches reality.

[Nifft]

I'd recommend Sublime Chord if you wanna go the Bard-way.

Always a good choice, yeah.



Your argument isn't about interpretation of the rules, it's about adjudicating designer intent and validity of rules as written. In that argument, you are both making logical errors, mainly errors of generalization. Any conclusions drawn from that are fallacious (based on incorrect belief, information or reasoning; in this context synonymous with wrong), even if the conclusion matches reality.
You've got some misconceptions.

For example: "designer intent" was held up as a justification (an "appeal to authority") for one interpretation of the rules, so that got shot down -- but that was just a counter-argument against a rhetorical stance.

You seem to be confusing rhetoric with logic. Or perhaps you've mistaken that counter-argument for my actual main argument? If you're uncertain what my point was, I'd be delighted to help you understand it. Feel free to PM me.



Oh PLEASE

It's obviously Risen Martyr, no other prestige class they'd like. It's obvious!

Let's see, username tainted_scholar... the obvious choice is Sacred Purifier.

[JoshuaZ]

Your argument isn't about interpretation of the rules, it's about adjudicating designer intent and validity of rules as written. In that argument, you are both making logical errors, mainly errors of generalization. Any conclusions drawn from that are fallacious (based on incorrect belief, information or reasoning; in this context synonymous with wrong), even if the conclusion matches reality.

Interesting analysis. Can you expand on it? In particular, what do you think are the errors of generalization going on?

[digiman619]

Take a guess.:smalltongue:


tactical soldier?



Oh PLEASE

It's obviously Risen Martyr, no other prestige class they'd like. It's obvious!


Let's see, username tainted_scholar... the obvious choice is Sacred Purifier.

How dumb can you be? It's OBVIOUSLY Illumine Soul!

[thorr-kan]

Some prestige classes require levels in the class they're advancing. Some don't. Anima Mage is one of the ones that doesn't (for binding, anyway). It's just one of those things where you have to read the text. Like with spells known. *Shrug*
Do you have examples of others besides Anima Mage?

I'm curious, as I can't recall any others from WotC that behave that way.

[Draconium]

Do you have examples of others besides Anima Mage?

I'm curious, as I can't recall any others from WotC that behave that way.

Master of Masks (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=3) advances spellcasting, but doesn't actually require spellcasting to get in. That's the only other one I can recall, but there may be others.

[thorr-kan]

Master of Masks (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=3) advances spellcasting, but doesn't actually require spellcasting to get in. That's the only other one I can recall, but there may be others.
Not...quite the same, but I see what you mean. Huh.

[Troacctid]

Do you have examples of others besides Anima Mage?

I'm curious, as I can't recall any others from WotC that behave that way.
According to my notes: Worldspeaker, Mourner, Memory Smith, Battle Howler of Gruumsh, Green Whisperer, Icesinger, Stalker of Kharash, Lyric Thaumaturge, Artist's Vengeance, Demonbinder, Dragon Devotee, and Guardian of the Road.

[ryu]

According to my notes: Worldspeaker, Mourner, Memory Smith, Battle Howler of Gruumsh, Green Whisperer, Icesinger, Stalker of Kharash, Lyric Thaumaturge, Artist's Vengeance, Demonbinder, Dragon Devotee, and Guardian of the Road.

Also, oh hey new avatar? I approve of the variety.

[Vortling]

The Constructor (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625b), especially without the astral construct nerf from Complete Psionic. I like having a bunch of constructed minions that lack any ethical concerns (evil undead, cruelty to animals, etc)

[Inevitability]

The Constructor (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625b), especially without the astral construct nerf from Complete Psionic. I like having a bunch of constructed minions that lack any ethical concerns (evil undead, cruelty to animals, etc)

I doubt zombies have any ethical concerns either. They're only concerned with killing stuff, which is hardly ethical. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

I doubt zombies have any ethical concerns either. They're only concerned with killing stuff, which is hardly ethical. :smalltongue:

Why? Nothing stays dead in D&D land, and both sides of the good/evil paradigm endorse violent solutions to problems.

[Troacctid]

Zombies are unethical because animate dead channels elemental evil energy in order to power and control the undead. This has an innate corrupting effect on the caster, and, depending on the cosmology of the setting, it may have adverse effects on the soul of the dead person and/or on the balance of good and evil in the universe.

Yes, I know it was a play on words, I just have these didactic urges sometimes, I can't help myself.

[Inevitability]

I just have these didactic urges sometimes, I can't help myself.

You're on GitP: uncontrollable didactic urges are basically a prerequisite. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Some GMs allow the Anima Mage thing and some don't. Check with yours before assuming it's permitted. There, now we can all move on.

Evangelist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/e-h/evangelist) is my favorite by far - 9/10 progression of all your base class features, plus you get upgraded to 6+Int skills.


The PF's Eldritch Knight is one of my favourite concepts. An awesome concept executed in the poorest of ways. It has such a cool name too. Shame.

Well, I'm not too bummed by it considering the Magus is a base class and is awesome!

EK actually works well in tandem with certain classes, e.g. Arcane Archer, Blade Adept, or White-Haired Witch.

[Krazzman]

From my 3.5 days I either played or wanted to play:
Shadow dancer
Master of shrouds
Dragon Disciple (thinking about going for one in PF soon)
Warshaper
Eldritch Diciple
Eternal Blade
Sublime Chord.

Sadly most of the times either just 1 or 2 levels short of getting far enough to take a level the campaign or character died.

In Pathfinder I find myself drawn to the Hellknight.

[Jowgen]

I like Stalker of Kharash. Neutral Good gets so little love as an alignment, and it's ability to turn the lackluster Favored Enemy mechanic into something worthwhile is great. Also, Scent of Evil is a fun ability.

[thorr-kan]

According to my notes: Worldspeaker, Mourner, Memory Smith, Battle Howler of Gruumsh, Green Whisperer, Icesinger, Stalker of Kharash, Lyric Thaumaturge, Artist's Vengeance, Demonbinder, Dragon Devotee, and Guardian of the Road.
Thank you.

[Vortling]

Zombies are unethical because animate dead channels elemental evil energy in order to power and control the undead. This has an innate corrupting effect on the caster, and, depending on the cosmology of the setting, it may have adverse effects on the soul of the dead person and/or on the balance of good and evil in the universe.

Yes, I know it was a play on words, I just have these didactic urges sometimes, I can't help myself.

Yeah, this. I was shooting more for the ethical concerns for the player who is using the minions. :smallsmile:

[Cosi]

The [Evil] tag doesn't mean that the spell eats your soul. It means that Good Clerics don't get to cast it. Making zombies isn't an inherently evil thing. For example, a Fell Animate fireball makes zombies and does not have the evil tag.

[Nifft]

The [Evil] tag doesn't mean that the spell eats your soul. It means that Good Clerics don't get to cast it. Making zombies isn't an inherently evil thing. For example, a Fell Animate fireball makes zombies and does not have the evil tag.

Heh.

Making zombies isn't a consistently evil thing.

If you use the Animate Dead spell, though, it is an inherently Evil way to do it.

[Troacctid]

The [Evil] tag doesn't mean that the spell eats your soul. It means that Good Clerics don't get to cast it. Making zombies isn't an inherently evil thing. For example, a Fell Animate fireball makes zombies and does not have the evil tag.
It actually does blemish your soul, since casting an [Evil] spell is explicitly an evil act. And more concretely, casting an [Evil] spell gives you a corruption point. Get 10 points and it's off to Baator with you when you die, even if you don't have an evil alignment, per FC2.

Fell Animate doesn't channel the primal forces of evil, or it would carry the [Evil] tag, so it's different.

[prufock]

Interesting analysis. Can you expand on it? In particular, what do you think are the errors of generalization going on?
Any argument of the form

X is thus
X belongs to set "Letters"
Y belongs to set "Letters"
therefore Y is thus

is not logically valid. Example: shiitake are safe to eat, shiitake are mushrooms; death caps are mushrooms, therefore death caps are safe to eat. This is a logical error.

You each make this error when discussing designer intent (page 1).


You've got some misconceptions.

You each make at least 3 posts concerning intent. I don't consider your initial assertion re sane DMs part of "the argument," because you post no support for it. There's little to no discussion or rule interpretation (the rule in question being you can enter anima mage with feats without binder levels).

[Tainted_Scholar]

How dumb can you be? It's OBVIOUSLY Illumine Soul!

About time someone got it right!

[JoshuaZ]

Any argument of the form

X is thus
X belongs to set "Letters"
Y belongs to set "Letters"
therefore Y is thus

is not logically valid. Example: shiitake are safe to eat, shiitake are mushrooms; death caps are mushrooms, therefore death caps are safe to eat. This is a logical error.

You each make this error when discussing designer intent (page 1).



I agree that that would be logically fallacious. The key distinction here is that humans use heuristics rather than strict first-order or second order logic for most of our reasoning. For example, if you've just learned that "birds" are a thing, and you've encountered 5 examples of birds all of which can fly, it would be logically fallacious to say that "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3...X_n, and they could all fly so so can X" but it would not be fallacious to say "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3,... X_n, and they could all fly, so it is more likely that X can also fly than if we knew nothing at all about X." Essentially this is the distinction between classical, strict logic, and Bayesian reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability).

[Nifft]

You each make at least 3 posts concerning intent. I don't consider your initial assertion re sane DMs part of "the argument," because you post no support for it. There's little to no discussion or rule interpretation (the rule in question being you can enter anima mage with feats without binder levels).
I was disproving a positive assertion, so I spoke to that assertion. That assertion was about designer intent. Disproving a positive assertion is a significantly more limited burden of proof.

Did you expect me to build a case which upheld a positive assertion of my own? That might be your confusion.

Failing the "no sane DM" rule would disqualify a PrC from actual play for me, and that would in turn disqualify the PrC from being my favorite.





I agree that that would be logically fallacious. The key distinction here is that humans use heuristics rather than strict first-order or second order logic for most of our reasoning. For example, if you've just learned that "birds" are a thing, and you've encountered 5 examples of birds all of which can fly, it would be logically fallacious to say that "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3...X_n, and they could all fly so so can X" but it would not be fallacious to say "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3,... X_n, and they could all fly, so it is more likely that X can also fly than if we knew nothing at all about X." Essentially this is the distinction between classical, strict logic, and Bayesian reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability).

In addition to thinking about heuristics and Bayesian reasoning, I'd suggest you look into graded set membership functions. That seems to be the way people think about things.

For example, let's take the sentence "Birds fly.":
- That's true under human cognition because flight is a central feature of the bird category.
- It's false under binary logical sets because there exist non-central members of the set "birds" which don't fly.

What you're thinking of is better than a heuristic, because it can be be represented mathematically, but it's not taught as part of logic in highschool -- so you'll see a lot of binary-logic kids here on the 'net who think they're very clever for pointing out that what looks true to normal human cognition is "not logical".

My favorite book on the topic has a very easy to remember title: https://www.amazon.com/Women-Fire-Dangerous-Things-Categories/dp/0226468046

[prufock]

I agree that that would be logically fallacious. The key distinction here is that humans use heuristics rather than strict first-order or second order logic for most of our reasoning. For example, if you've just learned that "birds" are a thing, and you've encountered 5 examples of birds all of which can fly, it would be logically fallacious to say that "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3...X_n, and they could all fly so so can X" but it would not be fallacious to say "X is a bird, and so were X_1,X_2,X_3,... X_n, and they could all fly, so it is more likely that X can also fly than if we knew nothing at all about X." Essentially this is the distinction between classical, strict logic, and Bayesian reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability).

Heuristics are useful, but they're a pragmatic compromise. Bayesian inference requires assumptions about probability, which may not be shared. Even if you share the assumptions, you can at best say there is a probability of something, which can be useful, but isn't the same as saying "X is a bird."

[JoshuaZ]

Heuristics are useful, but they're a pragmatic compromise. Bayesian inference requires assumptions about probability, which may not be shared. Even if you share the assumptions, you can at best say there is a probability of something, which can be useful, but isn't the same as saying "X is a bird."

Yes, but the point is that this formalism is roughly encapsulates what we mean when we talk about evidence (although not completely how humans do it as Nifft noted). This has gotten extremely off of the thread topic, so this is probably going to be my last comment on this matter (I hope (https://xkcd.com/386/)).

[prufock]

I was disproving a positive assertion, so I spoke to that assertion. That assertion was about designer intent. Disproving a positive assertion is a significantly more limited burden of proof.
You haven't disproved the claim (that the designers intended the rule the way it is written) any more than he proved the claim. You refuted the reasoning, not the same thing. Do disprove the claim, you'd need to show the inverse (that the designers didn't intend the rule the way it is written).


Did you expect me to build a case which upheld a positive assertion of my own? That might be your confusion.
I expected nothing, only stated the situation.


Failing the "no sane DM" rule would disqualify a PrC from actual play for me, and that would in turn disqualify the PrC from being my favorite.
I can't find anywhere that you've stated this rule, so I've got nothing to add except that you're entitled to your preference.


Yes, but the point is that this formalism is roughly encapsulates what we mean when we talk about evidence (although not completely how humans do it as Nifft noted). This has gotten extremely off of the thread topic, so this is probably going to be my last comment on this matter (I hope (https://xkcd.com/386/)).
Different people have different standards for evidence in different circumstances. When discussing something as explicit as game rules, I err toward strictness.

And to add an on-topic thought to this thread...

DREAD WITCH

[Rizban]

My personal favorite is Jaunter from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Of course, it's because my favorite race is Thri-kreen... Jaunter is a dex based class that gets teleportation and planar travel abilities based on you being able to jump really, really well. It's a perfect fit for a Kreen! Since it's only 4 levels long, you can fit it into a lot of builds pretty easily.
Here is a build that I made using Thri-kreen Fighter 2/Ranger 1/Jaunter 4/Consecrated Harrier 10. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484502#post20683556) The premise of the build is that he's a champion of his faith who can track his assigned target anywhere in the multiverse, even across planes, and then just jump there...



I havent played it yet but I really love the idea of Walker in the Wastes. Its such a cool concept.This is one of my favorites too! With the right tricks, you can get in with just 1 level in Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?274996). Most of the class features are actually useful at the level you gain them without being overpowered with that trick, but you lose a casting level really early on, making you extra gimpy at low levels. Hitting dry lich at ECL 11 though is pretty amazing and so worth being gimpy until then.


Eventually (a Fast Time plane would be helpful there), the afflicted PC has a strength score best expressed in scientific notation, at which point anything with HP can be killed with a single punch.Now we know what PrC Saitama took...
"Cancer" mage also explains the baldness...


The Charlatan (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8763.0)Absolutely love this one too! Built one for a game, but the DM didn't like the class and nixed it. :smallfrown:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Favorite out of the thousands of PrC's, hmm.....

Chameleon is way up the list but I think my greatest fondness lies at the feet of either ultimate magus or cerebremancer.

Ultimate magus gives you something pretty close to what's written on the tin (incatatrix gives it a run for the money but extra forbidden school :smallyuk:).

Cerebremancer gives you the ultimate flexibility of a psionicist -and- the arcane might of your choice of arcanist and is just... Nice, IMHO. The only major hurdle here is the early cap-off with only 10 levels of advancement that's difficult to jive with a 20 level build.

[Nifft]

Yes, but the point is that this formalism is roughly encapsulates what we mean when we talk about evidence (although not completely how humans do it as Nifft noted). This has gotten extremely off of the thread topic, so this is probably going to be my last comment on this matter (I hope (https://xkcd.com/386/)).
Don't worry, I'll correct them. :)


You haven't disproved the claim (that the designers intended the rule the way it is written) any more than he proved the claim. You refuted the reasoning, not the same thing. Do disprove the claim, you'd need to show the inverse (that the designers didn't intend the rule the way it is written). I refuted the foundation of the argument, which is a refutation of the argument.

Also, I'm afraid you've got poorly placed goal-posts: to refute a claim, I do not need to prove the inverse. I merely need to prove that the claim is false.

Here's an example: if you were to say that all birds fly, you would be wrong (again). However, to show that you are wrong, I do not need to prove the inverse ("no birds fly") -- which is fortunate, because the inverse is also wrong. I merely need to show that there exists at least one bird which does not fly.

You are making an absurd claim, hopefully from mere ignorance, which I've now corrected. PM me if you need more help with this type of logic.


I can't find anywhere that you've stated this rule, so I've got nothing to add except that you're entitled to your preference. This is literally a thread about preferences, so I should hope that I'm entitled to those.

(I can't find anywhere that you've stated that that I need to enumerate common-sense rules like "must be a playable PrC to be my favorite", or I would have laughed at your absurdity earlier.)


Different people have different standards for evidence in different circumstances. When discussing something as explicit as game rules, I err toward strictness.
By strict RAW a character can't benefit from the Binder side of Anima Mage without a level of Binder, so a strict reading is also in my favor.


My personal favorite is Jaunter from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Of course, it's because my favorite race is Thri-kreen... Jaunter is a dex based class that gets teleportation and planar travel abilities based on you being able to jump really, really well. It's a perfect fit for a Kreen! Since it's only 4 levels long, you can fit it into a lot of builds pretty easily. Jaunter is an awesome class, but it bugs me that you can't get more Jaunt-points after you finish the class (except by advancing Dex I guess). IMHO it needs more support, or better synergy with some other subsystems.

Jaunter bugs me because it's great and I want more.


Chameleon is way up the list
In some ways, a Chameleon character feels like they're in more of a delayed-gratification base class than a PrC. I found myself planning out Chameleon pre-entry levels, optimizing them in completely inorganic ways -- which was fine, but I wonder how it would feel to play into the PrC more organically.

If the pre-entry levels and the Chameleon PrC were rolled into a single base class, the Chameleon spells would come on-line at level 6 (around the same time as they would for a Paladin or Ranger) -- but you'd still get so many more spells.

The one thing that bugs me about Chameleon is how worthless the non-spell features feel. I mean having access to all lists (up to 6th level) is very solid, but the flavor says that you're going to be a Fighter sometimes and a Rogue others -- but you're not a fake-Fighter, you're a fake-Cleric who casts Divine Power along with fake-Trapsmith Haste.

I tried to do a Chameleon adaptation for 5e, as a base class.

[nyjastul69]

My favorite PrC is Dwarven Defender. It sounds like this thread.

[Rizban]

Jaunter is an awesome class, but it bugs me that you can't get more Jaunt-points after you finish the class (except by advancing Dex I guess). IMHO it needs more support, or better synergy with some other subsystems.

Jaunter bugs me because it's great and I want more.I'd allow a homebrew feat for more points. I'd probably do it at 1+n, where n is the number of times you've taken the feat.Jaunty [Fighter, Scout]
Prerequisite: Travel Power class feature.
Benefit: You gain 2 additional uses of your travel power per day.
Special: You can take Jaunty multiple times, to a maximum equal to your Dex modifier (minimum 1). Its effects stack. Each time you take the feat, you gain one additional daily use of your travel power. For example, a jaunter who has taken Jaunty twice would have 5 extra daily uses.
A fighter or scout may select Jaunty as one of his class bonus feats.



In some ways, a Chameleon character feels like they're in more of a delayed-gratification base class than a PrC. I found myself planning out Chameleon pre-entry levels, optimizing them in completely inorganic ways -- which was fine, but I wonder how it would feel to play into the PrC more organically.

If the pre-entry levels and the Chameleon PrC were rolled into a single base class, the Chameleon spells would come on-line at level 6 (around the same time as they would for a Paladin or Ranger) -- but you'd still get so many more spells.

The one thing that bugs me about Chameleon is how worthless the non-spell features feel. I mean having access to all lists (up to 6th level) is very solid, but the flavor says that you're going to be a Fighter sometimes and a Rogue others -- but you're not a fake-Fighter, you're a fake-Cleric who casts Divine Power along with fake-Trapsmith Haste.

I tried to do a Chameleon adaptation for 5e, as a base class.That's always kind of been my taken on Chameleon. I think it's a really neat idea, but it just never really panned out for me.


My favorite PrC is Dwarven Defender. It sounds like this thread.If you rule that they can take a 5-ft. step each round without losing their stance, I like them a lot. Being unable to move at all without losing your limited use buff is just painful when the enemy 5-ft steps out of your reach...

[atemu1234]

Honestly I have a fun story for every prestige class I've played. I think one time I combined Osteomancer(Not sure on spelling)/Fleshwarper and it turned out scary, if not all that powerful.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In some ways, a Chameleon character feels like they're in more of a delayed-gratification base class than a PrC. I found myself planning out Chameleon pre-entry levels, optimizing them in completely inorganic ways -- which was fine, but I wonder how it would feel to play into the PrC more organically.


The one time I ever got to actually play one, I had planned it out before hand and came in from law incarnate with a quick dip into... Something with disguise as a class skill (honestly don't remember) as a changeling; the net result being that I could change the character into, basically, a new character each day.

It's really not that hard to skip the spells when you actually enjoy having limited capability. I do think it was probably my favorite character out of those I've ever gotten to play. Playing him as having a near pathological attachment to the changeling children's game "I'm you" allowed me to justify choosing weaker setups in-character. "Today, I will be guard-captain Rilmar from two towns back!" Rilmar being a fighter with no magical ability at all, for example.

Don't get me wrong, there were times where I -knew- there was a spell either in my book or in a divine list that would be perfect for the situation but I've always been a fan of "good enough" problem solving.

[Katrina]

Holt Warden gets an honorable mention for giving Druids the Move Silently and Hide Skills and making them truly stealthy in the forest. Also, a 10 minute hippie ceremony that acts like Heal 2 to 3 levels before you can actually cast that? Yes please.

Chameleon has come up quite a few times. Glad to see that others liked it as much as I did.

Completely broke a game by playing the Anarchic Initiate once. The look on the GM's face when I said "make a DC 32 Will save or take 320 Untyped Mind Thrust damage." In my defense, I was given 16 levels and told to be loaded for Dragon. And I did not use the "Ugly Stick". (Wand of Maximized Empowered Ego Whip. )

Oh, and even though I will never be allowed to play one. Thrallherd.

I also liked Fiend of Blasphemy and Fiend of Corruption from the Fiend Folio.

Liked the Dragon Disciple like some other people here, but always felt it was kind of a waste to put on a Sorceror. Pathfinder has added the Bloodrager however, who can benefit from it much better. ^.^

[Nifft]

I'd allow a homebrew feat for more points. I'd probably do it at 1+n, where n is the number of times you've taken the feat.Jaunty [Fighter, Scout]
Prerequisite: Travel Power class feature.
Benefit: You gain 2 additional uses of your travel power per day.
Special: You can take Jaunty multiple times, to a maximum equal to your Dex modifier (minimum 1). Its effects stack. Each time you take the feat, you gain one additional daily use of your travel power. For example, a jaunter who has taken Jaunty twice would have 5 extra daily uses.
A fighter or scout may select Jaunty as one of his class bonus feats.
That's cool.

If I run another 3.5e game, I'll probably adapt that to scale with total character level -- or just say that, at Jaunter 4, your jaunt-points per day equal half your character level +Dex bonus instead of just 4 +Dex bonus.


The one time I ever got to actually play one, I had planned it out before hand and came in from law incarnate with a quick dip into... Something with disguise as a class skill (honestly don't remember) as a changeling; the net result being that I could change the character into, basically, a new character each day.

It's really not that hard to skip the spells when you actually enjoy having limited capability. I do think it was probably my favorite character out of those I've ever gotten to play. Playing him as having a near pathological attachment to the changeling children's game "I'm you" allowed me to justify choosing weaker setups in-character. "Today, I will be guard-captain Rilmar from two towns back!" Rilmar being a fighter with no magical ability at all, for example.

Don't get me wrong, there were times where I -knew- there was a spell either in my book or in a divine list that would be perfect for the situation but I've always been a fan of "good enough" problem solving.

Yeah and self-nerfing for flavor is not the worst thing in the world, but I hate when a class makes me choose between power and flavor. I want both, at the same time, all the time.

I'd love it if the Chameleon's Combat adaptation gave Warblade Maneuvers, and the Stealth adaptation gave Sneak Attack + spell theft, and the Wild adaptation gave Totemist soulmelds + Track... or at least something to plausibly compete with the two spellcasting options.

[Stealth Marmot]

My favorite PrC is Dwarven Defender. It sounds like this thread.

Oh NO! A Dwarven Defender!

Quick, everyone, WALK BRISKLY!

Seriously though, the class has a bad rep but it actually is a very good class all things considered. it has Full BAB, 2 good saves, a d12 hit die, and you end up getting Uncanny dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, (Both useable in any armor) A Dodge bonus to AC, and Damage Reduction, and even some Trap Sense. The primary ability sucks overall, since it is at best situationally useful, but show me a class that gets a d12 hit die, full BAB AND 2 good saves.

[LordOfCain]

The primary ability sucks overall, since it is at best situationally useful, but show me a class that gets a d12 hit die, full BAB AND 2 good saves.Dwarven Defender.... what? You said show you a class that gave you that and never... actually... said not to give you the one you were talking about... :smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

Oh NO! A Dwarven Defender!

Quick, everyone, WALK BRISKLY!

Seriously though, the class has a bad rep but it actually is a very good class all things considered.
It really isn't.


you end up getting Uncanny dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, (Both useable in any armor) A Dodge bonus to AC, and Damage Reduction, and even some Trap Sense.
Like, those are not powerful or level-appropriate abilities. Trap sense? Come on.


The primary ability sucks overall, since it is at best situationally useful, but show me a class that gets a d12 hit die, full BAB AND 2 good saves.
Forsaker, Deepwarden, Defender of Sealtiel, Knight of the Chalice, Singh Rager, and Champion of Gwynharwyf (pretty much), to name a few. All of them except Forsaker are easily better than Dwarven Defender. (Forsaker is true garbage, though.)

[JoshuaZ]

Honestly I have a fun story for every prestige class I've played. I think one time I combined Osteomancer(Not sure on spelling)/Fleshwarper and it turned out scary, if not all that powerful.

Thematically that sounds really fun. I think I'm going to make an NPC villain around that combo. Thanks for the idea.

[Stealth Marmot]

Dwarven Defender.... what? You said show you a class that gave you that and never... actually... said not to give you the one you were talking about... :smalltongue:

But...the "besides this one" was implied wasn't it...

Must you? Really?

:smalleek:

[Telok]

I'm currently a fan of Mage of the Arcane Order. Yeah, it enables the batman wizard even more but if you aren't pushing too hard then it plays fine with lower power characters. Especially because it rewards conserving spells, minimum magic solutions, setting involvement, and roleplay.

The DM knows you have the (rather limited) ability to pull out the perfect spell on short notice. This leads to either creating some encounters that assume you'll have the right spell or just not worrying that the party can't do something. It frees up the DM and opens up his potions, you start needing to conserve that ability to deal with those situations. Plus you have to leave prepared spell slots open to use it. It's also great for RP. You get a guild to deal with, and the DM gets a guild to use on/with you. It ties your character to the game world and introduces stuff other than just kill/level-up to the game.

[Rizban]

Forsaker, Deepwarden, Defender of Sealtiel, Knight of the Chalice, Singh Rager, and Champion of Gwynharwyf (pretty much), to name a few. All of them except Forsaker are easily better than Dwarven Defender. (Forsaker is true garbage, though.)
It's a real shame that Deepwarden is only two levels long. Would have been neat if it was a full PrC...

[Stealth Marmot]

Forsaker, Deepwarden, Defender of Sealtiel, Knight of the Chalice, Singh Rager, and Champion of Gwynharwyf (pretty much), to name a few. All of them except Forsaker are easily better than Dwarven Defender. (Forsaker is true garbage, though.)

Forsaker: No. Knight of the Chalice has a d10 hit die and one good save. Singh Rager is 3.0 not 3.5 even assuming that your DM allows Oriental Adventures. Champion of Gwynharwyf only has 1 good save, though I admit just looking at the class makes me want to scream about how OP it is. You get Rage, Smite evil, divine grace, spells and damage reduction? Not to mention the other bonuses.

Still, two of these require the Book of Exalted Deeds and that book isn't technically 3.5 either, and NONE of them are core. In fact only Deepwarden is 3.5. As for the Book of Exalted Deeds, not a fan to begin with. To be honest, trying to define "good" and doing such a lackluster job of it and having a bunch of hypocritical things in it (Ravages anyone?) make me roll my eyes.

You are correct though, there ARE better classes out there, I'm just saying you could do worse than Dwarven Defender.

[Troacctid]

Knight of the Chalice has a d10 hit die and one good save.
I had it in my list as d12 and two good saves, but it looks like that was the 3.0 version and it was updated to d10 and one for 3.5. I'mma fix that.


Champion of Gwynharwyf only has 1 good save, though I admit just looking at the class makes me want to scream about how OP it is. You get Rage, Smite evil, divine grace, spells and damage reduction? Not to mention the other bonuses.
Divine Grace is basically like an extra good save. Anyway, having a bunch of class features doesn't make you OP if they're not actually good. You wouldn't go "Know direction at will, cure light wounds 1/day, Slow Fall, Trap Sense, Mobility as a bonus feat, martial weapon proficiency, reduced ACP in light armor, and +2 to Decipher Script? This class is so OP!"

[Muggins]

Anyway, having a bunch of class features doesn't make you OP if they're not actually good. You wouldn't go "Know direction at will, cure light wounds 1/day, Slow Fall, Trap Sense, Mobility as a bonus feat, martial weapon proficiency, reduced ACP in light armor, and +2 to Decipher Script? This class is so OP!"
Which is why Sentinel of Bharrai is so good, by comparison. It's like Bear Warrior, which every barbarian loves, except it also progresses spellcasting (without actually requiring it). And you get lightning and bear-summoning powers, too. And healing (like Lay on Hands, except with a limit of your own hit point total), and 10 energy resist to all the energy types.

Speaking of which: Definitely one of my favourite prestige classes. Its only real downsides are the poor BAB (which sucks, I guess, but you get to be a bear!) and it only having one good save (Will. Luckily it's not Reflex.).

[Zombimode]

Still, two of these require the Book of Exalted Deeds and that book isn't technically 3.5 either, and NONE of them are core. In fact only Deepwarden is 3.5. As for the Book of Exalted Deeds, not a fan to begin with. To be honest, trying to define "good" and doing such a lackluster job of it and having a bunch of hypocritical things in it (Ravages anyone?) make me roll my eyes.

Uhm, BoED IS 3.5
What makes you think it isn't? It was released in October 2003, just like Miniatures Handbook.
A quick glance reveals "Survival" and "Bluff" instead of "Wilderness Lore" and "Innuendo".
The monsters have the correct number of feats, depending on their HD.

I can't see anything that isn't in accordance with 3.5 in this book.

[Stealth Marmot]

Uhm, BoED IS 3.5
What makes you think it isn't? It was released in October 2003, just like Miniatures Handbook.
A quick glance reveals "Survival" and "Bluff" instead of "Wilderness Lore" and "Innuendo".
The monsters have the correct number of feats, depending on their HD.

I can't see anything that isn't in accordance with 3.5 in this book.

My mistake, I was thinking of the Book of Vile Darkness which was released a year earlier and was 3.0. I had assumed BoED was also released on the same edition since it basically was the sister book to the BoVD, but it turns out that was not true and 3.5 was fresh off the line when BoED was printed. In fact if I think about it, it might be the first 3.5 compliant sourcebook (aside from the miniatures handbook) and was probably updated mid writing to be compliant since it was released some 3 months after 3.5 was rolled out (pardon the pun)

Release dates and editions got kind of fuzzy during 2003.

In any case I still find the book to be hypocritical and trying to write what is "good" to be asinine.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

My favorite would have to be based on the race

If I'm a Changling then my favorite is the Chameleon, with the base class being Factotum ("i am anyone")

If i am anything else then it would be a tie
Pyrokineticist (burn)
Warshaper (look at this tentical)

can someone answer this for me (its an opinion)

Do you think that Factotum (how has all skills open) would have to take able learner (gives you to get into Chameleon?

[Jowgen]

I'm going to have to revise my earlier pick, and instead go for the Heartfire Fanner from dragon mag.

A 5 level PrC with full bard casting progression that not only stacks/provides bardic music, but actually provides genuinely interesting and useful bardic music uses, such as the ability to reduce allies metamagic costs and grant allies temporary feats, either from the fighter bonus list, or from the feats posessed by the caster himself. Even better, you don't even need to be a bard to enter it, as it provides you with 5th level bardic music upon entry.

It's the one reason beyond Inspire Courage optimization that ever makes me want to use Bards.